FIRST SECTION

Application no. 2515/11 Agil JAFARZADE against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 January 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Agil Jafarzade, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Baku.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

According to the applicant, on 16 September 2010 his friend committed suicide. On the same day the applicant was questioned as a witness at Police Station n o. 27. On 17 September 2010 the applicant was taken by the police to the Yasamal District Prosecutor ’ s Office where he was again questioned about the suicide of his friend. According to the applicant, at around 16:00 he and his brother J.A. (and later their friend A.H.) were brought to Police Station n o . 26 where the applicant allegedly was subjected to ill-treatment . According to the applicant, police officers beat him with trunche ons, kept him without food and drink and did not allow him to use the toilet un til the morning , in order to elicit a confess ion that he had incited his friend to commit suicide.

On 18 September 2010 the applicant was charged with an administrative offence of deliberate non-compliance with a lawful order of a police officer under Article 310.1 of t he Administrative Offences Code, and brought before the Yasamal District Court .

The applicant alleged that he had visible injuries on his face and arms and was walking with a limp when he was brought before a judge of the Yasamal District Court (who , nevertheless, did not ask any questions about his injuries).

According to the applicant , he, under the pressure by a police officer P.R. and because he was not represented by a lawyer, gave a false self ‑ incriminating statement in the courtroom that he had refused to go to the police station when a police officer had demanded his ID document. By a decision of 18 September 2010 the Yasamal District Court sentenced the applicant to five days ’ “ administrative ” detention .

Following the decision of the first-instance court of 18 September 2010 the applicant was taken to the Yasamal District Police Office to serve his sentence . According to the applicant, the Yasamal District Police Office documented the injuries on his body (no copy of this record of alleged injuries is available in the case-file before the Court) .

According to the applicant, he was not immediately released after having served his sentence but was taken to the Yasamal District Prosecutor ’ s Office where he was again questioned about the suicide of his friend. The applicant alleged that after his release he went to a doctor to treat his injuries.

On an unspecified date t he applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Yasamal District Court of 18 September 2010 complaining that before being brought to the first-instance court he had been ill-treated in Police Station n o. 26; and that he had been forced by the police to give false self-incriminating statements at the court hearing .

On 14 October 2010 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s appeal. According to the applicant, he was not informed about the date and time of the court hearing and therefore did not participate in the proceedings . Th is decision was final.

On 9 April 2011 t he applicant obtained a medical record from Baku C ity Polyclinic No. 16, noting that he had posttraumatic arthrosis of the right ankle, left foot and left talus-shin joint.

COMPLAINT S

1. T he applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention , in order to elicit a confess ion that his friend committed suicide under his influence , and that there was no effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment .

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings did not comply with the requirements of fair trial. In particular, he also complains that his participation at the appeal hearing was not ensured.

3. The applicant further complained that the Court of Appeal was not an effective remedy in breach of Article 13 of the Convention because it failed to examine his complaints about alleged ill-treatmen t.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, d id the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the right to be informed about and to participate effectively in the proceedings, the possibility to defend oneself in person, and the opportunity to challenge the evidence and to oppos e its use ?

2. Did the applicant comply with the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies when lodging a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Has t he applicant been subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

4. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the transcripts of the hearings and the applicant ’ s appeals.